2. That boat sailed with 4661.
--Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of ashok malhotra
> Sent: Thursday, 30 July 2009 12:45 AM
> To: Hannes Tschofenig
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] My concern with draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
> 05.txt
>
> A couple of comments re. RFC 4661
>
> 1. As you know, RFC 4661 was written with the SIP protocol in mind.
> So,
> the filters it discusses are
> a bit different from what would be needed for Geopriv. So, I assume
> you
> are planning on using the spirit,
> not the letter of RFC 4661.
>
> 2. Please, please do not try and subset XPath. I realize that XPath
> is
> a complex specification but if you
> try and subset it you will open yourself to months of argumentation.
> Second, most vendors already have a
> XPath implementation and it's better to just use it rather than prepare
> an implementation for a subset of XPath
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > I don't know how well RFC 4661 is interoperable.
> >
> > I care about the persons who have to implement this.
> > Note that we are talking about dumping this functionality into a LIS.
> The
> > LIS will most likely have to implement this functionality without
> potential
> > for re-use with other applications.
> >
> > Maybe the implementation of RFC 4661 is simple and I am worried
> without a
> > reason.
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> >> Sent: 29 July, 2009 20:52
> >> To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; geopriv@ietf.org
> >> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
> >> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt
> >>
> >> Having looked at this, I'm wondering if restricting
> >> (prohibiting) certain xpath constructions is wise. I agree
> >> suggesting specific ways (the first in your examples) is preferred.
> >>
> >> Do you see an actual interoperability problem, or merely an
> >> opportunity to provide a short cut method to avoid
> >> implementing the full xpath?
> >>
> >> Brian
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Hannes Tschofenig [mailto:Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:02 PM
> >>> To: 'Brian Rosen'; geopriv@ietf.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
> >>>
> >> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
> >>
> >>> 05.txt
> >>>
> >>> For example, RFC 4661 would allow you to detect changes in civic
> >>> address tokens in the following way:
> >>>
> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <filter-set
> >>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-filter">
> >>> <ns-bindings>
> >>> <ns-binding prefix="ca"
> >>> urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"/>
> >>> </ns-bindings>
> >>> <filter id="123" uri="sip:presentity@example.com">
> >>> <trigger>
> >>> <changed>//ca:A1</changed>
> >>> </trigger>
> >>> </filter>
> >>> </filter-set>
> >>>
> >>> Or
> >>>
> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <filter-set
> >>> xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-filter">
> >>> <ns-bindings>
> >>> <ns-binding prefix="pidf"
> urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf"/>
> >>> <ns-binding prefix="gp"
> >>> urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10"/>
> >>> <ns-binding prefix="cl"
> >>> urn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civilLoc"/>
> >>> </ns-bindings>
> >>> <filter id="1" uri="sip:presentity@example.com">
> >>> <trigger>
> >>> <changed>
> >>>
> >>> /pidf:presence/pidf:tuple/pidf:status/gp:geopriv/gp:location-
> >>> info/cl:civicAd
> >>> dress/cl:A1
> >>> </changed>
> >>> <changed>
> >>>
> >>> /pidf:presence/pidf:device/gp:geopriv/gp:location-
> >>> info/cl:civicAddress/cl:A1
> >>>
> >>> </changed>
> >>> <changed>
> >>>
> >>> /pidf:presence/pidf:person/gp:geopriv/gp:location-
> >>> info/cl:civicAddress/cl:A1
> >>>
> >>> </changed>
> >>> </trigger>
> >>> </filter>
> >>> </filter-set>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Do we know anything about the implementation status of RFC 4661?
> >>>
> >>> Ciao
> >>> Hannes
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Brian Rosen [mailto:br@brianrosen.net]
> >>>> Sent: 29 July, 2009 18:21
> >>>> To: 'Hannes Tschofenig'; geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>> Subject: RE: [Geopriv] My concern with
> >>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you cite some examples, please.
> >>>>
> >>>> Brian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org
> >>>>>
> >> [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >>
> >>>>> Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:30 AM
> >>>>> To: geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>> Subject: [Geopriv] My concern with
> >>>>>
> >> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-
> >>
> >>>>> 05.txt
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> after reading RFC 4660 and RFC 4661, which is heavily used by
> >>>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters-05.txt I had some concerns.
> >>>>>
> >>>> RFC 4661 is
> >>>>
> >>>>> a very generic format for event notification filtering and
> >>>>>
> >>>> it is good
> >>>>
> >>>>> to re-use the work that was done there. There is, however, a
> >>>>> problem with reusing it without putting additional restrictions
> on
> >>>>>
> >>>> its usage,
> >>>>
> >>>>> namely one can accomplish the similar (if not the same) effect
> >>>>> using many different ways (at least the XML documents look
> >>>>> different that are sent in the SUBSCRIBE body).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To me that sounds a lot like the issues we went through with GML.
> >>>>> There we also wanted to make the life of the implementer
> >>>>>
> >> easier by
> >>
> >>>>> restricting the available options down to an acceptable minimum.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe we should do the same with
> >>>>>
> >>>> draft-ietf-geopriv-loc-filters as
> >>>>
> >>>>> well.
> >>>>> If we find a way how to accomplish a certain
> >>>>>
> >> functionality then the
> >>
> >>>>> structure of the XML document is going to be described in detail
> >>>>> and that's the way how it looks like and nothing else is allowed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do others share my concerns?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ciao
> >>>>> Hannes
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Geopriv mailing list
> >>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >>>>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
